Karnataka High Court
N Siddashetty vs State By Regional Transport Officer on 10 October, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
Crl RP 98/2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.98/2011
BETWEEN:
N. Siddashetty,
S/o Ninga Shetty,
Aged about 56 years,
Occ: Coolie, Sagare village,
H.D.Kote Tq.
Mysore District.
Petitioner
(By Sri Girish B. Baladare, Adv.)
AND:
State by Regional Transport Officer,
Chikkamagalur, represented by
Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bangalore.
Respondent
(By Sri Vijayakumar Majage, HCGP)
This criminal revision petition is filed under
Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
praying to set-aside the order dated 28.10.2010 passed
by the C/c Addl. Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur in
Crl.A.No.213/2009 and order dated 14.12.2009 passed
by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chickmagalur in
C.C.No.1517/2005.
Crl RP 98/2011
2
This revision petition coming on for admission this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has committed default in paying road tax in relation to maxi cab bearing No.KA-18/3083 of which he was the registered owner. Before the Trial Court, petitioner took up the contention that vehicle was under repair, it was not in road worthy condition, therefore, he had not paid the road tax. The petitioner had produced Ex.D.2 to prove that on 10.12.2004 he had given intimation to Regional Transport Office.
2. In the instant case, we are concerned with road tax due for the quarter commencing from 01.12.2000 ending on 28.02.2001. The petitioner is alleged to have intimated to Regional Transport Office about vehicle not being in road worthy condition on 10.12.2004 by sending information as per Ex.D.2. Therefore, the intimation sent on 10.12.2004 does not come to rescue of petitioner. Under Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, liability to pay tax is Crl RP 98/2011 3 absolute. The liability to pay tax in advance is not dependent on the certificate of fitness. Even if vehicle is not in road worthy condition and could not be put to road without repairs being carried out, the owner having possession and control of vehicle is liable to pay tax and then seek refund. In the case of State of Karnataka vs. K. Gopalakrishna Shenoy (AIR 1987 SC 1911) the Supreme Court has held:
"8. Section 7 read with the relevant Rules, therefore, makes it clear that an owner or other person paying the tax for a motor vehicle in advance would not suffer in any manner on account of the payment of the tax if the vehicle is not put to use on the roads and he can apply to the authorities concerned and seek appropriate refund as per the scales given in Rule 23. The scheme of the Taxation Act is such that the tax due on a motor vehicle has got to be paid in terms of Section 3 at the prescribed rate and in advance and the liability to pay tax continues as long as the Certificate of Registration is current but if it so happens that in spite of the Certificate of Registration being current, the vehicle had not Crl RP 98/2011 4 actually been put to use for the whole of the period or a continuous part thereof, not being less than one calendar month, the person paying the tax should apply to the Prescribed Authority and obtain a refund of the tax for the appropriate period after satisfying the Authorities about the truth and genuineness of his claim. Sections 3 and 4 are absolute in their terms and the liability to pay the tax in advance is not dependant upon the vehicle being covered by a Certificate of Fitness or not. Even if the vehicle was not in a road worthy condition and could not be put to use on the roads without the necessary repairs being carried out, the owner or person having possession or control of a vehicle is enjoined to pay the tax on the vehicle and then seek a refund. Perhaps in exceptional cases where the vehicle has met with a major accident or where it is in need of such extensive repairs that it would be impossible to put the vehicle to use or where the Transport Authorities themselves prohibit the use of the vehicle due to its defective condition and cancel the Certificate of Fitness or suspend it, the person concerned may surrender the Certificate of Registration and other documents like permit Crl RP 98/2011 5 etc., and seek the permission of the Transport Authorities to waive the payment of tax on the ground that no proof of non-user was necessary and as such payment of tax on the one hand and an automatic application for refund on the other would be a needless ritualistic formality and if the permission sought for is granted, he need not pay the tax. In all other cases the only course left open is for the person concerned, to pay the tax in advance and thereafter apply to the Authorities and obtain refund of tax after proving that the vehicle was not fit for use on the roads and had in fact not been made use of. The principle underlying the Taxation Act is that every motor vehicle issued a Certificate of Registration is to be deemed a potential user of the roads all through the time the Certificate of Registration is current and therefore liable to pay tax under Section 3(1) read with Section 4. If, however, the vehicle had not made use of the roads because it could not be put on the roads due to repairs, even though the Certificate of Registration was current, the owner or person concerned has to seek for and obtain refund of the tax paid in advance after satisfying the Authorities about Crl RP 98/2011 6 the truth of his claim. It is not for the Transport Authorities to justify the demand for tax by proving that the vehicle is in a fit condition and can be put to use on the roads or that it had plied on the roads without payment of tax. It would be absolutely impossible for the State to keep monitoring all the vehicles and prove that each and every registered vehicle is in a fit condition and would be making use of the roads and is therefore liable to pay the tax. For that reason, the State has made the payment of tax compulsory on every registered vehicle and that too in advance and has at the same time provided for the grant of refund of tax whenever the person paying the tax has not made use of the roads by plying the vehicle and substantiates his claim by proper proof. Any view to the contrary would defeat the purpose and intent of the Taxation Act and would also afford scope and opportunity for some of the persons liable to pay the tax to ply the vehicle unlawfully without payment of tax and later on justify their non-payment by setting up a plea that the vehicle was in repair for a continuous period of over a month or the Crl RP 98/2011 7 whole of a quarter, half-year or year as they choose to claim."
3. The learned counsel for petitioner has raised the question of limitation and this question is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court reported in 1991(1) Kar.L.J. 268.
4. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The petition is dismissed. The office is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this order to the trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm